Horsley: 1 debate doesn't win election

Normally I don’t watch presidential debates. I’d rather watch an old movie or walk the dog.

Last week’s debate between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney was an exception. I was curious to see how the two men would look, side by side. We’ve seen plenty of each man separately, but before last week, not in the same room for quite a while.

If I were scoring the debate like a baseball game, I’d give it to Mitt, 6-3. He grabbed an early lead and never let go of it, sort of like the Texas Rangers did for most of this season. The president’s weak debate performance is bad news for Democrats, with a ray of hope at the end of the tunnel.

Romney had been prepping for this first of three debates for years, and it showed. He was peppy, had his talking points down, and seemed like he’d just had a blood transfusion. This, according to his supporters, is the Romney they’ve known all along, finally getting his game on.

The president, by contrast, seemed flat. The split-screen view of the men wasn’t kind to Obama, who scribbled notes as Romney talked and looked like he wasn’t fully present.

Romney had time to prep carefully for the first debate because he doesn’t have a day job. In fact, since he left the Massachusetts governor’s mansion in January 2007, he really hasn’t had a job at all except running for office.

Obama has a challenging day job. Immediately following the debate, Obama supporters began arguing he didn’t do so well because he’s so busy being president that he didn’t prep enough. If he had taken off work for several months (or years) to get ready for the debate, he might have done better.

Other Obama supporters argued that historically, incumbents don’t do well in first debates but usually go on to win elections. Still others said Obama really didn’t do badly in the debate — it just seemed like it.

You can spin the debate any way you like, but from where I sat, Obama got shellacked, big time. No reason to sugar-coat it.

To voters here in Texas, in one sense the debate really doesn’t matter. Owing to the redness of our red state, no matter what happened in last week’s debate or will happen in future ones, our state will award all 38 of its electoral college votes to team Romney. Win, lose or draw, Romney walks away with Texas.

Even if the entire Texas Panhandle decided to vote for Obama — a bit of a stretch, I know — it wouldn’t change the electoral college outcome. Texas has a winner-takes-all policy with our 38 electoral votes.

In another sense, the debate might not matter in the bigger picture either, because Obama probably will win the election for one simple reason: he’ll get more electoral votes. The magic number is 270, and Obama appears to have a lock on that number.

I say this because the most accurate indicator of how this election will go is a meta-analysis by Nate Silver of the New York Times. Silver has shown an uncanny accuracy in predicting election outcomes since he started analyzing demographic and voter patterns and blogging the results, first anonymously in 2007, then on a website launched in 2008 called The 538 (from the number of total electoral college votes).

In the 2008 presidential election, The 538’s statistical model correctly predicted the outcome in every state except Indiana and a sliver of Nebraska. It nailed every one of the 36 Senate races. In the 2010 midterm elections, The 538 got 34 out of 36 Senate seats correct and 36 of 37 governor’s races.

At the time of this writing, The 538 has Obama ahead, 321 electoral votes to 216. Though Silver advises caution with these numbers, a 100-point spread is a lot. Mitt’s the underdog with a remarkable tendency to say unbelievably dumb things and stick stubbornly to them before finally retracting them.

It’s still Obama’s election to lose.

David Horsley teaches English at West Texas A&M University and is a freelance writer. His email address is dhorsley@wtamu .edu.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Mitt on Feb 22 2012: "We're going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20% including the top 1%."

Mitt on 10-3-2012: "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high income Americans."

Even Newt had to admit Mitt's plan has changed:

"This morning on Meet The Press, Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs confronted Newt Gingrich on a fundamental inconsistency in Romney’s description of his tax plan. During the primary debates, Romney insisted that everyone in America would get a 20% tax cut, including the 1%. But last week’s during his debate with Obama, Romney insisted that his tax cut would not reduce taxes at all for wealthy Americans.
Gingrich acknowledged the clear inconsistency, saying “I think it’s clear he changed.” He described the change as “good politics.”

Of course, while Romney’s spin regarding his plan has changed, the plan itself has not. Independent experts have concluded that, even if Romney eliminated every tax deduction, it still wouldn’t counterbalance his massive tax cuts for the wealthy.
His tax plan was one of 27 issues where Romney was less than honest during the debate. Romney’s campaign also conceded he misstated the truth on green jobs."

I believe that Obama will be re-elected because most Americans have been living beyond their means and on credit and refuse to realize that sooner or later the piper must be paid.
When the credit runs out and the government can no longer provide houseing, food and medical care for half the population, what then?

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

are three current tallies of electoral college votes that show Obama ahead in firm votes. They seem to validate Silver's data. Obama could potentially lose the popular vote but still win re-election on electoral votes.

Here is a current electoral college vote tally from the website RealClearPolitics. My two younger conservative brothers like this website so it must be valid, right?

Sooo, does that mean Obama will wait till 2016 or 2014 to impose Martial law and turn this nation around?
I think whichever one wins it will be about the same result, whatever that is.
Revelations is getting closer.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

answer and he is now hedging his stance just in case his delusional idea is proven to be just that - - delusional.

Yhmil to me on Oct 5 under the "Your Turn" tab:
"Given obama's pathetic showing on the debate 10/3/2012 , one wonders how such an unstable, unreliable, and anti-constitutional individual will respond in the next several weeks.

You don't realize, fielder that obama can issue an unconstitutional executive order declaring martial law with no preparation. And he is just the kind of deranged and delusional would be dictator that would do so. After all, like yourself, he clings to the totally false and delusional idea that the constitution is no bar to the actions of the federal government, or to his own actions as president of the USA."

Y, you left off the part about the TSA being armed elite force that would be used by Obama to enforce the martial law. Just didn't want you to forget.

No one debate does not make an election or a presidency, but it helps people know who is ready, willing and able to do the job, and who will not spend the next 4 years blaming their predecessor .

After Romney got wiped out by Gingrich, I did not hear him complain about Newt cheating or blaming him for his own poor performance, However, true to form, Obama was out the very next day blaming Romney and Kerry for his bad job. Obama never take the responsibility for any of his actions (typical liberal), and I for one, am sick and tired of listening to him whine and cry about the mess he inherited when he is the one to spend $700M to get the job in the first place.

Logic would say, that if you are going to spend 45 times what a job pays to get it- you would at least look into what the duties and responsibilities entail, and make sure that you are really up to the task of preforming it

saying some really dumb things on occasion, but Obama is developing the uncanny ability to finally speak the truth where people are listening, and they do not like being told they did not build their own business, or that they should give up their hard earned paycheck for those to lazy to work, or that they need to pay higher gas and electric bills.

the more Obama stays of his canned teleprompter speech the next 3 weeks, the more he hurts his own cause

because that is when Obamacare fully kicks in, and you are going to see uprisings once people fully comprehend what has happened to their healthcare, and he would not want to risk an election where he might gt a 2/3 majority in either chamber that would impeach him

Thanks, David Horsley. It's so nice to hear a voice of reason here in the Panhandle. I can remember back when all the hate was focussed on JFK. Such lovely people live here and yet some believe the strangest things.

The Gallup poll has the two in a 47-47 tie. And that's among registered voters, not likely voters. It's a horse race now, and I agree, Amarillo, or Texas in General is not the place to try and make a difference. I will be in Ohio and Minnesota the next two weeks. THAT'S where I will be putting my efforts in.

Sounds like sugar coating to me, Mr. Horsley. Obama has a challenging day job? Where's the evidence of that? Vacations, golf, campaigning, The View, Letterman.... while the Middle East is in turmoil, Americans are paying record highs for gasoline and food, and more than 40 million must swallow their pride by using food stamps just to feed themselves. This country is in desparate need of a real leader. This president has not shown any ability or even desire to take responsibility and be an effective leader. He consistently passes blame onto others while he's had 4 years to get the job done, (2 years of which he had majorities in both houses of congress). His blame game does not sound presidential; it sounds juvenile.

Speaking of golf, President Reagan was at a golf course playing a round fairly early in his presidency when someone took hostages at the clubhouse. He was so concerned that people would get hurt if he continued to play golf he said it wasn't worth the potential danger to others so he could do something that was merely a game. He felt his golfing was something very inconsequential and easy to give up when balanced with the danger it could pose to innocent people. So he quit.

If you are hired to do a job then you do the job....you sell yourself as the one that can get it done.
dont blame the past for not getting the job done you said you could and would do,
Ask yourself this...did we get our moneys worth from obama. If so vote for him again.

It might be time to put a buisnessman in office, I dont know if theres anything ordinary Americans can do at this point. We The People only know what The Government lets us know.

We The People could be the only transparent ones. They know all about us.
Its really not about Democrate or Republic...its about US and Them.

By the way.... "Romney doesn't have a day job"... Isn't he past "retirement" age? Many people hit the RV parks with their poodle dogs after age 65. Have we come to a point where somehow we are derisive of people when they choose a life of public service rather than hanging out in Branson when they are in the "retirement" years? President Obama on the other hand, is in the prime of his life - in his wage earning years; shouldn't he have a full work day? Of course, the answer is yes.

What strikes me about your article, Mr. Horsley, is that you seem to excuse the president's poor performance on his busy day job...while crediting Romney's strong performance for the fact he really doesn't have a job.

What kind of a job does Mr. Obama have these days? It largely consists with getting up late and starting the day at 9:30am, going to fundraisers, and holding rallys. He's not doing things like meeting with his jobs council or leaders like Israel's PM, we know that. So how busy is he with presidential duties?

Sure, it's a historical pattern that incumbents do poorly in first debates. But this badly? You are being too generous with your assessment.

No one ever won by standing around like a potted plant, either.
The day after BO claimed Mitt lied, pleading his case to a sympathetic audience, expecting and receiving pity.
BO had a perfect opportunity to call out any lie during the debate but failed to do so, flashing the fake grin was his only defense.
A man who cannot string two intelligible sentences together w/o a prompter will have difficulty prevailing in a one on one debate.
We have a president who finds it difficult to think on his feet. He is a nimble reader but not a nimble thinker. Some of his unscripted pronouncements have more 'UHs' than actual words.
And Horsley criticized Bush for being less than eloquent, stumbling over his tongue, an embarrassment.